Protecting and Growing Self and Wealth in These Uncertain Times

House Democrats

Like I blogged Monday, the gun “control” crowd is off-and-running several weeks into the new year. In addition to a ban on certain AR-15 rifle ammunition, they’re also pushing to ban “high-capacity” firearm ammunition magazines. From the website of the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislation Action (NRA-ILA) last Friday:

Anti-gun U.S. Senator Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) and U.S. Representative Elizabeth Esty (D-Conn.), have introduced their Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act (S. 407 and H.R. 752, respectively), in yet another attempt to ban magazines that accept more than 10 rounds. Similar legislation has been introduced in previous Congresses, and has repeatedly failed since the expiration of the Clinton “large” magazine ban in 2004.

Firearms designed to use magazines that hold more than ten rounds have been around for more than a hundred years. Today they constitute a majority of all new firearms manufactured, imported and sold in the United States, for what the Supreme Court, in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), called the central purpose of the Second Amendment: self-defense. While gun control supporters claim that the magazines are unnecessary for self-defense, millions of Americans disagree, and the Supreme Court has ruled in Heller that laws are unconstitutional if they prohibit firearms that are in common use for defensive purposes.

Moreover, studies have shown that magazine bans don’t reduce crime. The congressionally-mandated study of the 1994-2004 federal “large” magazine “ban” concluded that its 10-round limit on new magazines wasn’t a factor in multiple-victim or multiple-wound crimes. A follow-up study concluded that “relatively few attacks involve more than 10 shots fired,” and “the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement.” And a majority of law enforcement in the United States acknowledges that banning standard-capacity magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds will not increase public safety.

A person attacked in a parking lot, or at home in the middle of the night, will probably have only the magazine within the firearm. No one should be arbitrarily limited in the number of rounds he or she can have for self-defense.

The NRA opposes this legislation and will continue to fight attempts in Congress to limit magazine capacity.

As I type this, each and every co-sponsor of this legislation is a Democrat (16 in the Senate and 107 in the House).

You can track the status of Senate Bill 407 here and House Bill 752 here via Congress.gov.

While I admire U.S. Vice President Joe Biden for his long-time service to our country and the passion he’s brought to the various positions he’s held through the years, I was put off by a tyrannical-sounding comment he reportedly made last night while asking House Democrats to keep fighting for gun “control” during their retreat in Lansdowne, Virginia. Kate Nocera wrote on the POLITICO website yesterday:

He told the members attending the retreat that he was unwavering in his belief that the recommendations the task force has put forward are not in violation of the Second Amendment.

“It is clearly within the right of the government to determine what type of weapons can be owned by the public.”

(Editor’s note: Italics added for emphasis)

Unfortunately for the Vice President, the fact is, it is not “clearly within the right of the government to determine what type of weapons can be owned by the public.”

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution reads:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

First off, there’s that phrase “shall not be infringed.”

Secondly, no mention is made of what types of “Arms” the people could- or could not- “keep and bear.” Handgun, shotgun, rifle. Or for those who like to point out the Founding Fathers had no idea of just how far firearm technology would advance by the 21st century- pistol, blunderbuss, musket, rifle. Not a peep.

Nothing new about the highly-publicized “assault weapons” ban bill that’s supposed to be coming from U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA). But another gun “control” bill focusing on “high-capacity” ammunition magazines appears to be on the verge of being introduced in Congress. Lucy Madison reported on the CBS News website yesterday:

As lawmakers return to Capitol Hill today to kick off the start of the 113th Congress, Democrats are already priming for a renewed battle over gun control, announcing the introduction of a bill banning high-capacity ammunition magazines before the first House session had been gaveled in.

The High Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act, which is being introduced by Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., and is co-sponsored by Diana DeGette, D-Colo., would ban the sale or transfer of ammunition magazines holding more than 10 rounds…

“These assault magazines help put the ‘mass’ in ‘mass shooting’ and anything we can do to stop their proliferation will save lives in America,” said McCarthy in a statement. “These devices are used to kill as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time possible and we owe it to innocent Americans everywhere to keep them out of the hands of dangerous people. We don’t even allow hunters to use them – something’s deeply wrong if we’re protecting game more than we’re protecting innocent human beings.”

(Editor’s note: Italics added for emphasis)

In 2004, a research report submitted by the Jerry Lee Center of Criminology, University of Pennsylvania, to the United States Department of Justice and the National Institute of Justice found no statistically-significant evidence that the decade-long bans on “assault weapons” and ammunition magazines holding more than 10 rounds that began in 1994 had reduced firearm-related murders. From “An Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003” in June 2004:

Because the ban has not yet reduced the use of LCMs in crime, we cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence.

(Editor’s note: Italics added for emphasis)

With LCM’s being “large-capacity” magazines.

To be fair, the report also noted:

However, the ban’s exemption of millions of pre-ban AWs and LCMs ensured that the effects of the law would occur only gradually. Those effects are still unfolding and may not be fully felt for several years into the future, particularly if foreign, pre-ban LCMs continue to be imported into the U.S. in large numbers.

Yet, common-sense dictates the bad guys will just bring more “low-capacity” magazines along with them when performing their dirty deeds. As I said on New Year’s Eve:

Call me crazy, but something tells me the bad guys won’t be hindered by either of these proposed bans. In fact, in the event the criminals are ever short “hi-cap” mags, don’t be surprised to hear tales of them mastering super-fast magazine changes on the “low-capacity” ones they brought along in more numbers.

Gun “control” looks to be a priority for some on the first day of the new Congress. On December 17, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) announced she would introduce legislation for a new “assault weapons” ban on the day the 113th Congress first meets. And right before this weekend, Democrats in the House of Representatives announced they would be introducing legislation that very same day that would ban Americans from buying or transferring “high-capacity” ammunition magazines. Sam Stein reported on the Huffington Post website on Friday:

House Democrats will introduce legislation to ban the production of high-capacity magazines on the first day of the next congressional session, the office of Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), one of the lawmakers sponsoring the bill, told The Huffington Post.

The Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act will mirror a failed bill introduced during the 112th Congress…

The bill Democrats will introduce would limit magazines, belts, drums, feed strips and “similar device[s]” to 10 rounds of ammunition. It would allow people to hold on to the “large capacity ammunition feeding device[s]” that they currently own, but prohibit them from buying others or transferring the ones they have.

Call me crazy, but something tells me the bad guys won’t be hindered by either of these proposed bans. In fact, in the event the criminals are ever short “hi-cap” mags, don’t be surprised to hear tales of them mastering super-fast magazine changes on the “low-capacity” ones they brought along in more numbers.

From My Other Blog

While tying up loose ends with the latest quarterly update of Offshore Private Vaults, I encountered a number of private vault promotions taking place these days, including: • Custodian Vaults (Sydney, Australia)- “We are excited to announce that we are offering a 30 day FREE TRIAL at ‪#‎CustodianVaults‬ as part of our Chinese New Year […] ...

I remember reading about Cofres Bitcoin in the news last year. On May 14, 2014, Allen Scott reported on the CoinTelegraph website that Team Daniel Bruno: …will be opening the world’s first Bitcoin store in Montevideo, Uruguay. The Cofres (safes) swap point will be the first-of-its-kind Bitcoin and Swiftcoin brick and mortar location where people […] ...

The other week, while researching offshore private vaults that I could add to this blog’s sister site, I came across a secured storage facility in Canada that really caught my attention. Enter CUBE Global Storage Ltd., or CUBE. From their website under “Our Facility”: Our facility in Victoria, British Columbia is purpose-built for the secure […] ...